Fellas! If this is the look you get when you’re sexing your lady up, you might be doing it wrong

By David Futrelle

The “involuntarily” celibate fellows who’ve branded themselves incels may not be getting any sex, but that doesn’t stop them from thinking, and theorizing, about sex, much in the way someone blind from birth might theorize about what it’s like to see.

Over on the Incels.co forums, the regulars recently found themselves in a debate on the apparently controversial (amongst incels) proposition “Does Female pleasure matter?”

The fellow asking the question, an Incels.co regular with more than 400 comments to his name, feels that the only correct answer is “no.”

“I’ve been thinking, objectively the purpose for sex is to reproduce,” Salutextm began.

Men essentially enjoy this since they need to climax for reproduction to happen in light of the fact that the nerves that make sex feel pleasurable are in the head of the Penis. So a male’s pleasure is truly essential and will happen more often than not.

Ok, so far so good. We need to reproduce to keep our species going, so evolution has evidently designed sex to be fun so we’ll do it.

But I couldn’t think of any natural reason for the female orgasm or female pleasure.

Wait, what? Putting aside the fact that women do tend to enjoy sex at least as much as men, rendering the entire debate moot, why wouldn’t it be evolutionarily important for women to enjoy sex just like men? After all, don’t they have to agree to sex for sex to occur?

Oh, wait, I think I know where he’s going here.

That is to say, women don’t need to experience any pleasure for reproduction to occur. They simply must be there and take the man’s seed.

That … only makes sense if you assume that evolution has designed men to be rapists and women to be rape victims.

Female pleasure is as of now, harder to accomplish than male due to placement of nerve endings (clitoris) and hormonal differences (testosterone)

Well, I’m no expert on hormones or nerve endings but my informal studies and, er, fieldwork, have suggested to me that female sexual pleasure isn’t some weird unattainable thing seen rarely in nature, like the snow leopard or a Trump supporter who isn’t a racist.

So for what reason do people feel like its the man’s fault for a woman not getting off when their pleasure isn’t to be prioritized to begin with? Naturally, their pleasure doesn’t even matter. Or at least I couldn’t find any reason as to why it would

And with that attitude, you’re probably never going to see female sexual pleasure in the wild.

“Do women subject themselves to things they don’t want to do for some ulterior motive?” he asked, baffled.

Why else would women engage with men if they do not find most men physically sexually attractive … or barely receive any physical sexual pleasure in most acts involving their man?

Not all the commenters on Incels.co agreed with Salutextm’s hypotheses.

“All a Woman wants is to be fucked hard by Chad and then ignored,” declared IAmJAcksBrokenHeart.

A commenter called Huntedbyhate went even further, suggesting that the fact that women do feel sexual pleasure was really the heart of the problem. His proposed “solution” to this alleged problem was rather gruesome.

“I wish that all females had their clits cut off so they couldn’t experience pleasure,” he wrote. “More foids for us and fewer for Chad.”

It’s not altogether clear why he thinks the “foids” — that is, women — who’ve had their genitals forcibly mutilated would flock to the men who had actually called for this horrific practice. But that’s incel logic for you.

Despite these critics, a significant portion of the commenters seemed to agree that female pleasure doesn’t matter, or at the very least it shouldn’t.

“Their pleasure doesn’t matter,” asserted Danzai. “Foids were made to make babies, not enjoy themselves in it.”

“Why would the pleasure of a toilet matter?” added Insomniac.

Once again, the regulars on Incels.co have made it clear why the women who are refusing to have sex with them — which would be all women, everywhere, on planet earth — are making the right decision.

We Hunted the Mammoth is independent and ad-free, and relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Comments

When you talk about soy it’s shorthand for feminized men, which is ridiculously sexist and is also pushing a falsehood about how soy interacts with the human endocrine system.

Actually, just the first. It’s shorthand for feminized men.

All I have is my lived experience of becoming a much happier man when I started doing “performative masculinity” or whatever. I was soft and doughy from my mid 20’s to my late 30’s. I am much harder now, and have been rewarded for it, and not just sexually.

Not that anyone here gives a shit, and fair enough.

It’s very common for members of dominant groups to prioritize preserving that dominant status over individual well being.

I’ll tell you what, when that thin skinned orange haired piece of shit wins reelection, this will be part of why. I mean, this small corner of the Internet won’t move the needle, but Trump got elected throwing red meat to hungry dogs. Right or wrong, men aren’t feeling particularly dominant these days.

Whatever. I’m living life on easy mode, myself. I’ll pull the left lever, as usual.

That might be how you’re using it, but, again, it’s sexist af, and also you can’t just erase the origin. Again, words have meanings and continuing to use terminology born out of incorrect beliefs lends validity to those beliefs.

I am much harder now, and have been rewarded for it, and not just sexually.

We still don’t care that you totally have all the sex, my dude.

Right or wrong, men aren’t feeling particularly dominant these days.

The poor mens! They’re only represented by 95% of Fortune 500 CEOs, 82.4% of senators, and 80.4% of congresspeople. Totally women’s faults they’re so underrepresented. 🙄

That, or you’re reading my words in a biased fashion. I mean…”make her feel good and not dehumanized” doesn’t seem particularly transactional, especially if I do it because I’m a good man, not just to get laid.

You might have a point if you said anything remotely like this, but you framed whether women should have pleasure in a sexual encounter as what you get out of it and that’s dehumanizing.

And that if they enjoyed it, they would come back for more. So you get more sex.

How does this play with your ‘life is a series is sportsball metaphors’, btw? Who is winning during your incredibly active sex life that you now have because you lift, bro? (Or whatever it is you do to make yourself less ‘doughy’, i don’t really care the specifics)

John, are you really out of the manosphere? You claim you are ‘deconstructing’ their ideas, as someone who ‘was’ on the inside, consuming their koolaid without the skepticism we would have.

But here is the most important question of them all…

DID YOU ASK US IF WE WANTED/NEEDED THAT?

Is this the appropriate space for it? It isn’t a safe space, there is no way it could deal with the topics it does, and the conversations it does, and be ‘safe’.

But i don’t expect someone who claims they are here in good faith to play devil’s advocate.

The supreme court in the US is stacked conservative now, twitter won’t ban white supremicists because it’ll catch republican politicians, Ford is a blithering idiot (i hate him so much, cut funding for flood control and guess what floodedddd?our nation’s capital???? That the army had to fix??? Ahhhhh!! Also Alberta is conservative now and so is PEI i believe.) I could go on!

My point is that, surprising very few, we *know* how that side thinks. We get it. Water is wet, and conservatives are killing us and the planet. MRAs think equality means that they’ll be treated how women and other minorities were treated. Incels are stewing in toxic misogyny.

Next time you want to play devils advocate (because that is what you are doing) ask yourself if you are enlightening anyone.

Because all i see is someone coming here and spewing unexamined manosphere talking points. You’ve internalised a lot of things, and it might be time to read and listen, rather than argue about genital mutilation????

Yes, asylum seekers are put in camps. Just saying you are an “asylum seeker” doesn’t get you a free residency. The state where you seek asylum has the right to detain you as it processes your application. Most do; e.g., England did during WWII, Germany and France today, the USA itself during Obama’s (and any other) presidency, etc. Those damn fascists, Obama and Churchill…

In any case, if the USA is so fascist, why are millions trying to illegally get INTO the USA? Why don’t they stay in safe, non-fascist Mexico? Because life in the USA is far, far better and freer than in most other places. This gives the lie to the whole “fascism” nonsense.

A personal note: my grandparents were Holocaust survivors. They would have looked with utter contempt at those pretending they are “opressed” by “fascism” in the USA. But I guess we all do what we can to fight fascism – some blow up Wehrmacht trains in the Russian forest, some post about Trump being evil on the internet.

Yes, asylum seekers are put in camps. Just saying you are an “asylum seeker” doesn’t get you a free residency.

Dude, a whole lot of the rise of Nazis in 20’s/30’s Germany sounded a lot like this. Lots of fear of the Eastern European Jews who totally didn’t have the right to be there and blah, blah, blah.

And the mass indefinite detention is not necessary. Never was. Giving them a court date and an ankle bracelet worked just fine before and costs less. This is all about xenophobia.

A personal note: my grandparents were Holocaust survivors. They would have looked with utter contempt at those pretending they are “opressed” by “fascism” in the USA

Yeah, those children who have died in US custody are just faking it. Only people in your own personal demographic could ever be for real oppressed. Those stupid pampered kids should just pull themselves up by their bootstraps, come back to life and start a small business or something.

I mean, really? The lesson you took from the Holocaust is that you win the oppression Olympics and no one else can ever be deemed oppressed again? Really? You are such a shitty person.

And lets not forget, thanks to anti-immigrant sentiment, a lot of Jewish people were denied asylum in the US. If we’d been more welcoming, a lot of people could’ve been saved. This is well known. You so sure, Anonymous, that your grandparents would feel contempt regarding concern for the plight of immigrants today? You’re also ignoring the multitude of Jewish people and Holocaust scholars that have drawn parallels. Why do you get to speak for all Jewish people, again?

In any case, if the USA is so fascist, why are millions trying to illegally get INTO the USA? Why don’t they stay in safe, non-fascist Mexico? Because life in the USA is far, far better and freer than in most other places. This gives the lie to the whole “fascism” nonsense.

I mean, why did so many Jewish people immigrate to Germany? Because they, you know, did.

While answering them I explained that of the 3, the existence or lack of concentration camps was the **least** relevant, since fascism can occur without them and concentration camps can occur without fascism.

In response to this, all you have to say are

Just saying you are an “asylum seeker” doesn’t get you a free residency.

and

if the USA is so fascist, why are millions trying to illegally get INTO the USA?

First, what happened in Europe before 1951 is irrelevant, since the landscape changed when the UN Convention on the Status of Refugees was passed that year.

Second, what happened before 1967 in other parts of the world is irrelevant since it was in 67 that the UN passed the Protocol extending the 1951 treaty to cover the entire world – except Palestine.

Third, dealing heroin is illegal in the US, but dealing heroin happens every day there. This is not suddenly evidence that the law does NOT prohibit heroin dealing in the US. So finding examples where refugees have been detained even after 1967 is not sufficient to show that the detention of a refugee is legal.

Fourth and a half, let’s look at exactly the law that ruins your position:

The 1951 Convention explicitly acknowledges that States retain the power to limit the freedom of movement of refugees, for example, in exceptional circumstances, in the interests of national security, or if necessary after illegal entry. Article 31’s non-penalization provision applies in some but not all cases, but Article 31(2) implies that, after any permissible initial period of detention, States may only impose restrictions on movement which are ‘necessary’, for example, on security grounds or in the special circumstances of a mass influx, although restrictions are generally to be applied only until status is regularized or admission obtained into another country.

The bit about 31 applying in “some but not all cases” means that the wording that seems to absolutely prohibit all detention will actually permit it in “exceptional circumstances”. Do those circumstances include passing through another country that wasn’t the country you originally fled? In other words is there any requirement that a refugee apply for asylum in the first country they get to after fleeing an unsafe situation or persecution?

Nope:

any merely short term stopover en route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the Article, and … the main touchstones by which exclusion from protection should be judged are the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reasons for delaying there (even a substantial delay in an unsafe third country would be reasonable were the time spent trying to acquire the means of travelling on), and whether or not the refugee sought or found there protection de jure or de facto from the persecution they were fleeing.

What if you enter the country illegally before applying for asylum? Or what if you show up with fake travel documents or other fake ID? Does that permit a nation to detain you?

Nope. The convention is very specific on that point.

In short, a single oral request for asylum invokes the protection as you imply it does not. One does immediately gain a right to residency on the strength of one’s claim alone. Though this right is only sufficient to last through the judicial determination of refugee status, the temporary right is, nonetheless, a legal right enforceable in both domestic and international courts.

Unfortunately, you confuse the right of residency with a right not to be detained. These are different: obviously if one is in a jail cell in Alabama for a year one has been residing in Alabama for a year.

But your inability to properly distinguish basic concepts really isn’t your worst problem here. Your worst problem is that you simply have an arrogant ignorance that permits you to believe you have relevant knowledge and expertise when you, in fact, do not.

………….
As a final point, Trump can be a fascist without the United States being entirely fascist. Not only does this negate the idea of process – there weren’t concentration camps in Nazi Germany in 1935, but there were in 1942. But it also confuses Trump with the entire US government.

Trump is a fascist. That doesn’t mean that the entire US government is fascist.

*I don’t advocate using just a youtube video to learn about anything. That said, this guy (even if he is very much mocking the subset of folks who think soy is gonna make them girly) does do some good reading, and posts links to studies that tend to be good jumping off points.

The references at the end of any study are a magical rabbit-hole of accumulated knowledge.

In any case, if the USA is so fascist, why are millions trying to illegally get INTO the USA? Why don’t they stay in safe, non-fascist Mexico? Because life in the USA is far, far better and freer than in most other places. This gives the lie to the whole “fascism” nonsense.

People fled Stalin’s Russia for Hitler’s Germany in the late 1930s/early 1940s, for reasons that made perfect sense at the time (namely, that they were keener to get out of the USSR than they were overly concerned about Hitler, who back then had a far less murderous track record). Does that give the lie to the whole “Nazism” nonsense?

The claim that because some refugees were unfaily turned away in the past hardly means all who claim such status need to be accepted now. It’s an obvious non-sequitur. People were unjustly convicted if, say, burglary in the past, too, but that hardly means any burglar who claims he was convicted unjustly should just be released. In any case the vast majority of illegal immigrants are not by any stretch of the imagination refugees.

My point in mentioning my grandparents is not, of course, that I am right because I am some sort of victim, but simply that I have the benefit of expert opinion, theirs, of what fascism is. Their expert opinion – not to mention the conclusion one would reach with 30 seconds of reflection – is that the idea that the USA is today “fascist” in absurd.

As for “but it’s like 1933 Germany”, this is claimed about *every* Republican president since at least Nixon – and, in Israel, about *every* right-wing government since they first one in 1977. For 40-50 years, fascism is “arriving” or “already here” in both the USA and Israel, which is significantly longer than the time fascism itself lasted even in Franco’s Spain, let alone Germany or Italy.

Do you even acknowledge that whether or not Trump is a fascist is a completely separate question from whether or not the USA is currently operating under an entirely fascist government?

It really seems to me, and I think to others, that you respond only to bits and pieces of what others are saying, and even when you’re responding to real bits & pieces, you seem to apply twisted interpretations to those bits and pieces to make them say things that they don’t say.

Trump gives experts in fascism reason to say he’s a fascist. Not being an expert in the topic of fascism, I look at the evidence, I look at what people say is characteristic of fascism, but ultimately I have to accept that my level of certainty is going to be less than perfect as long as I am not 1) telepathically reading Trump’s every thought to determine not just what he’s doing but why, and 2) sufficiently expert in fascism.

So, yeah. I believe Trump is a fascist. i could be wrong, but I think there’s good evidence there.

I do not believe we have a fascist court system.

I believe only a few – too many, but still a clearly outnumbered minority – of federal legislators in the USA would be willing to advance truly fascist legislation.

For this reason, i don’t believe that people living in the USA are living “under fascism”. But to the extent that it’s fair to say that one “lives under” a president, they could be truthfully said to be “living under a fascist”.

Do you even understand this stuff? You give every indication that you simply don’t. And when confronted with real evidence – like the undisputed existence of persistent press hostility to Hitler that necessitated the Nazi invention of the “lugenpresse” term and the Nazi strategy of rhetorically and politically isolating and punishing hostile press outlets – you completely ignore it.

You’re the one that asked if fascists ever had a hostile press. If an honest answer doesn’t matter to your argument, why did you ask the question in the first place?

You really need to think hard about whether you’re engaging honestly and thoughtfully here. If you’re not, well, it’s a free internet and you can do that if you want, but I’m not going to bother educating you, and if I address you at all those responses will certainly call out the poor ethical character of someone choosing not to engage honestly or think about what others are writing.

Finally, it’s not that my grandparents were oncologists, my own father is a retired oncologist. I even went with him on rounds. I even attended something called “Tumor Board” which was a weekly meeting of doctors on the histology of different cancers. Most of it I didn’t understand, but some I did and I learned much more about cancer than if I hadn’t had an oncologist father and hadn’t gone to Tumor Board. Moreover, he was a real expert: he didn’t simply experience cancer by having it. He studied his whole life and has been acknowledged an international expert by his peers.

None of that means that I’m somehow able to diagnose malignant disease in 30 seconds. Your bullshit that your grandparents survived the Holocaust and therefore you’re expert in whatever the fuck is just silly.

If you have evidence and argument for your claims, present them. If you don’t, then whether or not your uncle’s dog’s first owner taught psychology to Freud has nothing to do with your ability to recognize behavioral traits in people today.

Perhaps, but by the same token, they “lived under” (according to what people wrote about previous presidents) a communist (Obama), a war criminal (GWB), a moron (Reagan), a playboy (JFK), etc. Thinking the president is a you-know-what is par for the course, only the specific you-know-what changes slightly.

Incidentally, here is a link in Hebrew about prof. Ze’ev Sternhal, warning that fascism is coming soon – in 1973, 1977, 1982, 1988, 2001, 2010, 2014, 2016 and 2018. “Fascism” to the left is what the second coming is for milennialists (I mean members of such Christian sects, not those born ca. 2000).

Anonymous, if you can’t see America’s steady rightward authoritarian creep over the past forty years, then you’re either very young or you’re not very observant. People have been warning about the Republican party’s takeover for years. That doesn’t make them wrong, just as weather forecasters who predict hurricanes aren’t wrong during the time the hurricane is forming, gathering strength, and moving on shore. Fascism isn’t an all or nothing thing. There are degrees of it. It assumes different forms, but its end goal is always the same.

And sorry, but your grandparents aren’t “experts” on fascism, any more than I’m an expert on Watergate just because I was alive during that time. I’m going to trust people like Sarah Kendzior, who has spent her life studying authoritarian and fascist regimes. She recognizes the warning signs.

What’s the distinction between Eastern European Jewish immigration and Central American immigration? Why was it bad treat the former as an infestation and an existential threat but okay to treat the latter as such? Why is the mass detention of one group a crime against humanity, but the other justified? Is there a distinction other than you identifying with one group more than the other?

Also, 40-50 years is not that long a time. I agree that this is not yet a fascist government. We can still stop it happening and hopefully we will. But the seeds were sown decades ago when two not entirely unrelated things happened. One, the Republican party decided to become the party of opposition to civil rights. It’s called the Southern Strategy, but it worked on racist white people all over. When one of two major political parties decides to make fear of the other a key part of their platform, the risk is always there. Two, Christian dominionism became a political movement. A large segment of the population identifies as Evangelical Christians and most of them believe in theocracy more than they do democracy.

So yeah, the ingredients are there. Throw in an increasing rural/urban divide, growing income inequality and backlash against gains in social justice and you’ve got yourself fascism stew. Fortunately, the economy is doing pretty well right now. For a fascist leaning leader to truly turn the entire government fascist, a crisis is needed. Trump has failed to sell migrant caravans as that crisis. But to assume it can’t happen here is a bad idea.

Oh, and BTW, the Israeli government getting into bed with the party of Christian dominionism, also a bad idea. The only reason they are pro-Israel is because they believe an empowered Israel will bring about the end times and Jewish people will either convert or suffer and go to Hell. Do not for one moment believe that right wing Christians truly oppose anti-Semitism. Given the well documented rise in white nationalism and anti-Semitic hate crimes and conspiracy theories, these people are primed to turn on Israel, and when they do, it will be vicious. You’d better hope the progressives that you loathe so much for having empathy towards Palestinians can be successful at keeping the far right in check.

The only reason they are pro-Israel is because they believe an empowered Israel will bring about the end times

Maybe you already know this and were just speaking quickly, but your summary skipped a step I think is important.

Israel doesn’t trigger the end times by being powerful/safe, because in the end times Israel is ravaged by a more powerful army.

The end times begin (these particular Christians believe), when all the jews return to Israel and there are no Jews anywhere else on earth. Making Israel wealthy and powerful and thus an attractive place to live is merely baiting the trap. If they could guarantee all the Jews on earth were in Israel by simply killing all the Jews outside of Israel, I wouldn’t put it past them.

The agenda of these fuckers is ethnic cleansing … they simply prefer to do it without Zyklon because Hitler ruined that strategy and now if they go that route it’s bad PR and they lose money & can’t pass their legislation. Ethnic cleansing is the goal, avoiding genocide is merely the most expedient means of reaching a Jewless USA (and rest of the world, save for Israel).

This shit about getting Jews to “return” is as toxic and anti-semitic as it can possibly get without actually embracing genocide. It was no surprise to me at all to learn that the Chabad shooter was the son of a right-wing preacher.

Raised in/around fundy christian culture for about 20 yrs. You are correct about Xtains being anti-semitic and being Pro-Isreal. I never understood it that well as a child. But it was weird to have my family adopt Hebrew customs, be pro-Isreal state, talk about revering the ‘chosen ones’, and then go on disgustingly racist and anti-semitic screeds.

Anonymous is a curious case. The Venn diagram of pro Aipac, pro Likud alt right and antisemite alt right is pretty much a circle and I think he should reflect on the reasons. Why otherwise an antisemitic terrorist, would appreciate and be inspired by the Christchurch killer, a white supremacist who killed 50 muslim in a Mosque, who in turn was inspired by Breivik, who was also “pro israel” (Pro Likud, dunno if pro zionist would be appropriate, as I read zionism is also not monolithic either). Does he know “cultural marxism” is by now a semi mainstream transversal storytelling and sentiment in the reactionary and pro Trump sphere? It boils down to the idea that civil right movements, from feminism, to lgbt rights, to Mlk, etc is a ploy of jewish lobby to undermine the west and have it unfertile and “replaced” via immigration. What does he think about the “antiracist is codename for antiwhite”? It might not paint all republicans this way, but various shades of this storytelling are shared unchallenged.

Is anyone else here waiting for the other shoe to drop? I mean, Hitler seemed to be contained and limited in power in 1929, right up until bam! The Great Depression hit. And the economy now looks eerily like it did in late 1929, shortly before the bottom fell out. Stock market booming while ordinary Joes, Janes, and Enbies struggle, pundits claiming there’s nowhere for it to go but up, etc … instead of a wave of farm foreclosures it will probably start in residential housing again same as 2008 since the bubble there got reinflated quite rapidly.

We’ve seen some ugly things already, from mass shootings to the “family separation” stalags at the southwestern border to Trump’s rhetoric against the free press, but I think it pales in comparison to how ugly things will get very rapidly once the economy goes TU again.

It might be a good idea to have plans in place to GTFO the moment the stock market goes off the rails. If you’re middle class maybe set up some put options that will turn into a bunch of cash if that happens. Otherwise, mattress stuffed with cash? Maybe in an international currency that’s likely to stay stable? Renew your passport and have a destination in mind, if possible in a country that seems unaffected thus far and where you know people, can speak the language, and maybe have a potential path to citizenship.

The state where you seek asylum has the right to detain you as it processes your application. Most do; e.g., England did during WWII, Germany and France today

Our (Germany’s) reasons for, and execution of detention for asylum seekers is not comparable to that of the US.
For example, we do not rip families apart upon entry and put children into cages.
To compare the US to Germany in an attempt to normalise what is done to asylum seekers in the former, is like saying that both Norway and Egypt have prisons, therefor no problem with the Egyptian ones.
The mental gymnastics I’ve seen you do in this thread are astounding, and make it look like you’re more interested in winning an argument than actually being right. You’d rather twist the information you’re given to serve your talking points instead of actually engaging them.
Btw., my family survived the holocaust too, and those of them who are still alive now are watching Trump’s Whitehouse with great worry.

I don’t mean to revive a retired argument, it just grates on my nerves when I see people misuse my country, its laws and its history to advocate for totally-not-fascism.

Oh, I’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop since before Trump won the election. Growing up visibly queer and Jewish in a town packed with straight white Christians teaches you things.

But bug-out plans, no, don’t have. I have too much chosen family here, too much dependency on the medical system, no passport. But I do have money, connections, and useful skills. I’m going to stay here for now, and keep supporting those at higher risk than me.

I feel that. I’m just an undergrad right now but two research papers about to be due. Two small mini papers. 2 exams. One 10 minute presentation about my findings (I’m gonna throw up) and I have to finish putting all of my findings of projectile points into spread sheets. I hate spread sheets and if I have to look at another piece of Florence chert I’m gonna scream.

Anyone else know that the water from the Nile river is transported into the Faiyum Via the Vahr Yusef water that passes through the Lahun-Hawara Channel. And because of this it’s one of the very few in the Western Desert of Egypt to Survive the middle Holocene Drought. Because I due now and I have no idea how to bring that into my presentation in an interesting way. I can’t say about 6 of those words.

Also our Spring recital is about to come up and I have to get about 15 little girls ready to do a variation of swan lake and I might be taking on 15 more because the other dance teacher is sick. But hey I’m not stressed at all.

Oh, I’ve been waiting for the other shoe to drop since before Trump won the election. Growing up visibly queer and Jewish in a town packed with straight white Christians teaches you things.

I feel that as well.

I’m not Jewish though and I am a Christian. I’m really sorry you have to live with that stress and fear. The things you’ve mentioned use to make me question my faith a lot because I use to not think God could love me if I was queer because people told me he couldn’t. I don’t believe that now but I know how that can way on you and get annoying as well. I really hope your safe and I’m glad you have a support network.

Thanks, and likewise. You’ve been through a lot, and your strength shows.

And kind of similar with me and religion TBH. I was an atheist for many years because I couldn’t stomach the idea of an all-powerful male god (and anything less awful felt like turning my back on reality). Reconnecting with my spirituality involved abandoning a lot of core tenets of Judaism, though I still identify very strongly with Jewish culture.

@Surplus to Requirements
I’m part of that sensation, I always comment too late :).
I address this comment @John, but other people’s considerations are welcome.
Ok it’s pacific incels want women dependent, Peterson pander to them with the “enforced monogamy” and the esoterism of traditional gender roles and he says “chaos is feminine”, which is debated and mocked in a funny thread on Chapo’s subreddit, btw. You say
Attempt to blockquote (never tried) 🙂

Keep in mind, just about every dude on an incel board buys the logic of Alpha Fucks/Beta Bux. The problem (for them) is that Beta Bux are no longer so required. It’s really just more Chad worship.

in case it doesn’t work Keep in mind, just about every dude on an incel board buys the logic of Alpha Fucks/Beta Bux. The problem (for them) is that Beta Bux are no longer so required. It’s really just more Chad worship
I’d assume you don’t buy in that logic as well, but if you say beta bux is no longer required but “it’s really just more Chad worship” you don’t mean that the idea that women only ride the dick carousel of top 10% Chads “Alpha fucks” if they don’t have to rely in beta bucks, don’t you?
As it would mean that you buy into that bunk just as much as them, but they are “aware” as much as you that beta bucks doesn’t work as much and it’s a problem for them.
Unless you meant to say that of course, they think they are weeded out by this implied pareto rule and severe selection.
You wrote ” If women were still dependent on men, at least these guys could be “Beta Bux” rather than shut out of the “Sexual Marketplace” altogether. ” so I mean, it’s that what they think, or do you think it’s true that they are actually weeded out of this “marketplace” and JP solution is actually the only way to address it and they should just know their place, not that it would make it right, but you know, suggesting there is more scarcity than there is, is a way to create unnecessary panic and negativity?
Do you agree they would maybe find a woman by improving themselves or, like them, that enforced monogamy, unbreakable marriges were the only thing that assured the “hard working nice guys” to get their wives?
Or just that now women are free to choose whoever they want, as long as it’s reciprocal, just like men i mean, which doesn’t mean chads, alpha fucks, carousels top 20% and the like.
If you believe this, do you think yourself as Chad, top 20% and above?
It seems like you believe in the Soyboys meme, but from what I got phitoestrogens are not normal estrogens and don’t work like that. It’s a bit like the spinach iron myth, there are lots of food with more of these phitoestrogens than soy.
You mention you were doughy, what does it have to do with soy, you used to eat it then you stop and now you’re Chad? 🙂

It’s also not broadly true that a nation has the right to detain asylum seekers – certainly not Germany or the USA who have signed & ratified the UN CSR and the 1967 Protocol.

The details are complex, but refugees and asylum seekers have the right to NOT be detained, though the CSR also permits that right to be abridged in “exceptional circumstances” as necessary (not as politically desirable, but as necessary) for national security and a couple other purposes.

The circumstances must be exceptional. The detention must be extremely short term unless individualized grounds are found that a specific refugee should be treated very differently from the norm.

Further, the possession and use of false travel documents is excluded from the grounds of “exceptional circumstances” that could justify detention longer than necessary to accurately identify the person (though obviously if you’re traveling with false documents it will take a bit longer to positively identify you). Illegal crossing of one or more borders is ALSO excluded from the grounds of “exceptional circumstances”.

In short, the treaty generally requires that a nation detain refugees and asylum seekers no longer than necessary to ID them, and once positively ID’d they must be released unless there is specific evidence that that specific refugee who has been positively ID is a specific threat to national security or public safety. Examples could include someone who escaped from prison and then fled. While they could have been falsely imprisoned by an unjust regime, if they had been accused of violence they might still be guilty and a receiving nation might be justified (depending on details) in detaining that single person longer.

Of course, there are nations – like the USA – who violate provisions of the treaty. Some people – like a certain person in this thread – argue that these violations mean that detention isn’t against the law. But this isn’t true at all. The existence of murderers doesn’t mean that murder is really totally legal. The existence of heroin smugglers doesn’t mean that selling heroin is really totally legal. And the existence of other nations violating the rights of refugees doesn’t mean that Trump’s behavior is really totally legal.

BTW: the treaties also ban “punishment” of refugees and asylum seekers. When Trump states that he wants to make conditions in the US so hostile to refugees that it dissuades other people from trying to come and claim asylum? That is very specifically against the law. It’s amazing how blatantly against the law that is. If congress wanted to do so, they could (and IMO they should) impeach him for that alone. That’s the kind of thing that can earn you a date at the ICC.

I’ll tell you what, when that thin skinned orange haired piece of shit wins reelection, this will be part of why. I mean, this small corner of the Internet won’t move the needle, but Trump got elected throwing red meat to hungry dogs. Right or wrong, men aren’t feeling particularly dominant these days.

now THERE is some fucking thin-skinned projection.

you are one creepy motherfucker, John.

I know you can’t see it, past your manly manliness from manly workouts or whatever… but you have missed something somewhere that makes a real person… real.

Probably not in America’s case, though. It’s so hostile to the ICC that it enacted the “American Service-Members’ Protection Act”, which authorises the use of “all means necessary and appropriate to bring about the release of any U.S. or allied personnel being detained or imprisoned by, on behalf of, or at the request of the International Criminal Court”. So it’s commonly referred to as the “Hague Invasion Act”.

America really doesn’t like its actions (particularly military) being subject to international law.

Donate to the Mammoth!

We Hunted the Mammoth is an ad-free, reader-supported publication written and published by longtime journalist David Futrelle, who has been tracking, dissecting, and mocking the growing misogynistic backlash since 2010, exposing the hateful ideologies of Men’s Rights Activists, incels, alt-rightists and many others.

We depend on support from people like you. Please consider a donation or a monthly pledge by clicking below! there's no need for a PayPal account.

Send comments, questions, and tips for stories to me at dfutrelle@gmail.com, or by clicking here